Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
It's very easy to answer. Any restrictions on cyclists results in fewer cyclists, and research has shown that the more cyclists there are the safer they are.
More cyclists means more safety, fewer cars, less pollution, fewer casualties etc etc.
You're campaigning for the opposite of this.
Given the restrictions and expense placed on those wishing to use a car, truck, bus, motorcycle, why are there still millions of those in use?More cyclists means more safety, fewer cars, less pollution, fewer casualties etc etc.
You're campaigning for the opposite of this.
And given many cyclists drive, why would they jump through so many hoops to use a car etc, but not jump through even a tiny and possibly free hoop to enjoy riding on city streets?
I'm campaigning to save lives, nothing more. You, like others, are simply making excuses because you don't want to have to be involved in what is required to make that happen.
We've been through this with the construction industry which used to kill 10's of people every year. They said training wouldn't help, it's the nature of the business that people die. But over the past 20 years or so the number of deaths has been reduced to a handful or less, by training, better procedures and being aware of what's happening and how everybody can work together to avoid dangerous situations. Look at a building site now and it's a completely different environment from 30 years ago.
But if you suggest one thing - cyclists do not undertake other vehicles, you'll be accused of having no concept of what cycling is about, of being silly, ignorant and any number of other things but that's the one thing which would stop the vast majority of cyclist being killed in London. Forget training, helmets etc - this one thing would work but nobody has the balls to enforce it, so people carry on being killed by their own stupidity.
I'm a cyclist too btw, so I'm not anti cycling.
George111 said:
They will not accept anything, even training, as being a valuable and useful addition to safety.
walm said:
Look, clearly EVERYONE could do with more training - I mean, can more training ever be a bad thing?
George111 said:
I'm a cyclist too btw, so I'm not anti cycling.
George111 said:
There's no point discussing things with the cyclists because they beat you down with stupidity.
In your case, I agree.walm said:
So there is plenty of training but you want more training, is that it??
Unlike you, I have been on a bunch of those courses.
Not once did a trainer say to me, "can I show you the best way to notice the large truck in front of you".
(Although in fairness, they did stress the importance of the "lifesaver" - looking behind you regularly and before changing lane - but that applied to an awareness of ALL traffic.)
Look, clearly EVERYONE could do with more training - I mean, can more training ever be a bad thing?
But COMPULSORY training for cyclists is demonstrably bad for all the reasons HBGT lists and more, in particular the cost of setting up a massive DVLA equivalent and the idiotic idea that my 5-year-old needs a week-long course in order to pedal down a country lane at walking pace.
And once again since you are ignoring it completely.
How do we know that training cyclists rather than HGV drivers is the answer?
I don't know - perhaps a combo of both (which is what we have today)?
What is your evidence that MORE cycle training is going to solve people dashing up your inside?
Plenty of people were trained to drive a car and still take crazy risks.
Unlike me? Interesting..Unlike you, I have been on a bunch of those courses.
Not once did a trainer say to me, "can I show you the best way to notice the large truck in front of you".
(Although in fairness, they did stress the importance of the "lifesaver" - looking behind you regularly and before changing lane - but that applied to an awareness of ALL traffic.)
Look, clearly EVERYONE could do with more training - I mean, can more training ever be a bad thing?
But COMPULSORY training for cyclists is demonstrably bad for all the reasons HBGT lists and more, in particular the cost of setting up a massive DVLA equivalent and the idiotic idea that my 5-year-old needs a week-long course in order to pedal down a country lane at walking pace.
And once again since you are ignoring it completely.
How do we know that training cyclists rather than HGV drivers is the answer?
I don't know - perhaps a combo of both (which is what we have today)?
What is your evidence that MORE cycle training is going to solve people dashing up your inside?
Plenty of people were trained to drive a car and still take crazy risks.
So you are saying you want zero training? Why did you bother to attend and when and where was this? How old were you? I assume you do mean on a bicycle?
HBGT wants his cycling utopia now. I know that's not going to happen any time soon and want to make things safer, now.
And I am ignoring questions of HGV driver training...... by frequently listing all the training they have to go through and what they require to be added to their vehicles?! You couldn't make this stuff up
Compulsory training would save lives on city streets and a proficiency test to be able to ride to school would be a great start. Try to convince me again why that would be a bad idea?
walm said:
they did stress the importance of the "lifesaver"
Hardly ever see it. I cringe every time.George111 said:
As I said pages ago, the pro-cycling lobby are not interested in anything which will improve their safety except getting other vehicles off the roads . . . and they will not accept anything, even training, as being a valuable and useful addition to safety.
That's becoming clearer as the thread goes on. George111 said:
But if you suggest one thing - cyclists do not undertake other vehicles, you'll be accused of having no concept of what cycling is about, of being silly, ignorant and any number of other things but that's the one thing which would stop the vast majority of cyclist being killed in London. Forget training, helmets etc - this one thing would work but nobody has the balls to enforce it, so people carry on being killed by their own stupidity.
It may well do, but given that the majority of trained drivers never stopped going into hgv blind spots, where on earth is your evidence that cyclists will? That's all I'm saying.It's rare to do an m'way journey without seeing the tell-tale signs of a foreign hgv parked on the hard shoulder and car with it's side caved in stopped further on. I've done many a journey were I've seen more than one.
I never trucked much in London but when I did I felt I could clearly see that London drivers lacked the common sense that was found elsewhere in the country. And guess what - all other London road users were the same. Who'd have thought?
Not much point going into London and complaining that it's full of Londoners. Either put up with it or don't go.
heebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
Given the restrictions and expense placed on those wishing to use a car, truck, bus, motorcycle, why are there still millions of those in use?
Doesn't matter. The evidence is what it is and you can't change it, plus no-one ever said it had to follow any logic.Even the police have to be trained to cycle.
Digby said:
Mr Will said:
Oh, some of them were only breaking the law a little bit - so that's all right then 
It's not at all hard to end up on that list regardless of how hard you try. Tachograph hours are a genuine nightmare to keep on the legal sisde of during city driving. You can spend 300 days on the road during a year and be ONE SECOND over a break requirement on just one of those days and you will make that list.One bulb just popped out of twenty? You are on the list.
Didn't get the required mirror fitted by the time the changes came in to force? On the list.
Load security almost always points to the easy target scaffold trucks, but can also relate to changes to strapping requirements etc. One tiny fraying edge on one strap out of twenty? On the list.
Light items unstrapped but behind curtains? On the list.
Rear spray suppression mud flap a little too high or low? Mechanical defect. On the list.
We were told numerous times that the Vosa of old is now privately funded and that we could expect massive increases in fines.
As an example, I was recently fined £50 for forgetting to write a single world on a tacho (I was broken down for three hours and forgot to write where this had happened) and was given a verbal warning and let off £600 worth of fines for not showing a break during a swap from a digi card to a disc (even though they said they could see I had my break) and for not writing the circumstances of my break down on the rear of a tacho.
Hardly crimes of the century, but I would be well and truly on top of that list. During my brief chat with the cash-hungry people checking to make sure dozens upon dozens of daily rules and checks were all in order (and from the previous 28 driving days before this), I was told foreign drivers still display the worst abuse.
No haulage firm wants to lose their operators licence and to keep it, you have to jump through an ever increasing and expensive amount of hoops, have ongoing training and even more safety items fitted to vehicles.
If the same people doing these checks were put in charge of checking cycles and cyclist safety equipment etc, you could fill these forums with shocking tales for months.
As for the problem being closer to home, I'm afraid you are yet again making excuses for not wanting more aware and safer riders on the roads. I can, yet again if you wish, list all I have been through and all my vehicle has been through for the specific reason of cycle safety. If I do, maybe you can then list all the things the average cyclist has to go through to be made more aware of me. Deal?
Mr Will said:
I'd class driving over another vehicle because you didn't look properly as "doing something wrong" but hey, I guess we all have different standards. It's not like correct use of mirrors is part of the driving test or anything.
Do you know how long it takes to check six or seven mirrors and cameras? Do you realise it is almost impossible to keep track of a dozen + cyclists in those mirrors? You can easily lose track of one! Every time you check another mirror, the enviroment can have completely changed in the previous ones. Your opinion, I'm afraid, shows total naivety on your part.There are several hundred riders out there right now completely unaware that they were extremely lucky not to be injured by my vehicle. I did all I could and they did nothing but get impatient, or were ignorant of the dangers. It's that simple.
If your vehicle is unsafe to operate by design then it's use should be more strictly controlled. If a single driver is insufficient for this task then perhaps you need a truckers-mate, in the same way banksmen are mandatory when manoeuvring on site. It's not just cyclists you squash. Pedestrians get flattened just as often - perhaps you are in favour of licences for them too?
Mr Will said:
Digby said:
You, like others, are simply making excuses because you don't want to have to be involved in what is required to make that happen.
You are one of those others. You want all the burden to fall on the cyclists, yet refuse to accept that drivers need to make changes as well.Maybe you can tell me what they are all in place for. Perhaps the safety of myself and others will come in to play and then maybe you can try, yet again, to tell me why nothing has to apply to cycling on roads where people are being needlessly killed.
Digby said:
Mr Will said:
Digby said:
You, like others, are simply making excuses because you don't want to have to be involved in what is required to make that happen.
You are one of those others. You want all the burden to fall on the cyclists, yet refuse to accept that drivers need to make changes as well.Maybe you can tell me what they are all in place for. Perhaps the safety of myself and others will come in to play and then maybe you can try, yet again, to tell me why nothing has to apply to cycling on roads where people are being needlessly killed.
A 100 tonne crane has more restrictions than a 40 tonne truck. The 40 tonne truck has more restrictions than a 3.5 tonne van. The van has more restrictions than a car. A car has more restrictions than a bicycle. A bicycle has more restrictions than a pedestrian. That's just common sense - surely?
Tell me this - what do you think should be done about pedestrians? HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists. Is the solution training, hi-viz and helmets for them too?
Mr Will said:
They are all in place because you drive a large and dangerous vehicle that is easily kill or injure other road users. You are the danger, not the cyclists and pedestrians around you. All the training, lights and PPE in the world won't save me when an idiot in a tipper decides that getting paid for one more load that day is more important than my safety.
A 100 tonne crane has more restrictions than a 40 tonne truck. The 40 tonne truck has more restrictions than a 3.5 tonne van. The van has more restrictions than a car. A car has more restrictions than a bicycle. A bicycle has more restrictions than a pedestrian. That's just common sense - surely?
Tell me this - what do you think should be done about pedestrians? HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists. Is the solution training, hi-viz and helmets for them too?
No - you see large trucks safely driving about all the timeA 100 tonne crane has more restrictions than a 40 tonne truck. The 40 tonne truck has more restrictions than a 3.5 tonne van. The van has more restrictions than a car. A car has more restrictions than a bicycle. A bicycle has more restrictions than a pedestrian. That's just common sense - surely?
Tell me this - what do you think should be done about pedestrians? HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists. Is the solution training, hi-viz and helmets for them too?
You also see bikes safely cycling about
Where youve said HGV drivers kill twice as many pedestrians as they do cyclists you also have to ask the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists that kill themselves under HGVS and the numbers of either that travelled without such issue.
Youve got to report the stats fairly if we're to move forward
Can you do that?
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 2nd June 12:22
saaby93 said:
That may be so but it wasn't it approx 50:50 (45:55?) cyclist error vs driver error
About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Good, commom sense ideas but as we know common sense does not feature in the minds of the people in authority who dream up these hair-brained schemes that cause problems such as congestion.About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Jagmanv12 said:
saaby93 said:
That may be so but it wasn't it approx 50:50 (45:55?) cyclist error vs driver error
About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Good, commom sense ideas but as we know common sense does not feature in the minds of the people in authority who dream up these hair-brained schemes that cause problems such as congestion.About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Bikes are typically faster than cars around rush-hour.
If you made them hold station and avoid overtaking/undertaking then you would slow everything down and plenty of cyclists would hop back into their cars given the slower trip time, making it even worse.
Oh and what would you do with all the cycle paths on the road? Just get rid of them?
walm said:
Jagmanv12 said:
saaby93 said:
That may be so but it wasn't it approx 50:50 (45:55?) cyclist error vs driver error
About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Good, commom sense ideas but as we know common sense does not feature in the minds of the people in authority who dream up these hair-brained schemes that cause problems such as congestion.About umpteen pages back we were talking about some of things that could reduce these collisions
Holding station in traffic, avoid undertaking, removing ASLs all to improve bike and car behaviour
Have we moved on?
Bikes are typically faster than cars around rush-hour.
If you made them hold station and avoid overtaking/undertaking then you would slow everything down and plenty of cyclists would hop back into their cars given the slower trip time, making it even worse.
Oh and what would you do with all the cycle paths on the road? Just get rid of them?
Most of the cyclists in London at rush hour live in London - so most/many will not have cars anyway so they would just go back to using the bus/tube - no issue.
So the knock on effect of banning undertaking will be maybe a marginal increase in cars and journey time, but possibly not, probably an increase use of bus and tube and a significant - perhaps 90% reduction in the death of cyclists.
Cycle paths ? There will always be cyclists so they can use them like they do now . . .
George111 said:
Isn't slightly more congestion a price worth paying to prevent the death of cyclists ? Or do you value your ability to make progress over the lives of others ? Sounds like it.
Most of the cyclists in London at rush hour live in London - so most/many will not have cars anyway so they would just go back to using the bus/tube - no issue.
So the knock on effect of banning undertaking will be maybe a marginal increase in cars and journey time, but possibly not, probably an increase use of bus and tube and a significant - perhaps 90% reduction in the death of cyclists.
Cycle paths ? There will always be cyclists so they can use them like they do now . . .
He said these were common sense solutions to congestion. I believe that's wrong.Most of the cyclists in London at rush hour live in London - so most/many will not have cars anyway so they would just go back to using the bus/tube - no issue.
So the knock on effect of banning undertaking will be maybe a marginal increase in cars and journey time, but possibly not, probably an increase use of bus and tube and a significant - perhaps 90% reduction in the death of cyclists.
Cycle paths ? There will always be cyclists so they can use them like they do now . . .
I didn't address the safety issue.
But since you bring it up, I suspect encouraging millions of people onto bikes has a far greater health/longevity benefit in aggregate than the rather surprisingly small number of deaths (particularly this year!).
So yes - I think it is worth the trade off.
The cycle paths I meant were the ones on the road which put the bikes on the left of cars - so using them would be "undertaking" by most people's definition.
So do you want them banned?
Good point about the car/tube/bus option though - you are probably right there.
vkcs22 said:
The roads are getting too dangerous for cyclists, maybe they should consider safer alternatives modes of transport. As there will always be bad drivers out there.
Why are the roads getting too dangerous? Not cycled into London for a few weeks, but have done in the last few days and the amount of people on bikes is huge, far more than I've seen before. It is clearly working.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff